HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Water Fluoridation Linked...

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:11 PM

Water Fluoridation Linked to Higher ADHD Rates

http://www.newsweek.com/water-fluoridation-linked-higher-adhd-rates-312748

BY DOUGLAS MAIN 3/10/15 AT 2:44 PM

<>

The study, published in the journal Environmental Health, found that states with a higher portion of artificially fluoridated water had a higher prevalence of ADHD. This relationship held up across six different years examined. The authors, psychologists Christine Till and Ashley Malin at Toronto’s York University, looked at the prevalence of fluoridation by state in 1992 and rates of ADHD diagnoses in subsequent years.

“States in which a greater proportion of people received artificially-fluoridated water in 1992 tended to have a greater proportion of children and adolescents who received ADHD diagnoses [in later years], after controlling for socioeconomic status,” Malin says. Wealth is important to take into account because the poor are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, she says. After income was adjusted for, though, the link held up.

Take Delaware and Iowa, for instance. Both states have relatively low poverty rates but are heavily fluoridated; they also have high levels of ADHD, with more than one in eight kids (or 14 percent) between the ages of four and 17 diagnosed.

In the study, the scientists produced a predictive model which calculated that every one percent increase in the portion of the U.S. population drinking fluoridated water in 1992 was associated with 67,000 additional cases of ADHD 11 years later, and an additional 131,000 cases by 2011, after controlling for socioeconomic status.

“The results are plausible, and indeed meaningful,” says Dr. Philippe Grandjean, a physician and epidemiologist at Harvard University. This and other recent studies suggest that we should “reconsider the need to add fluoride to drinking water at current levels,” he adds.

..more..

41 replies, 2528 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply Water Fluoridation Linked to Higher ADHD Rates (Original post)
G_j Mar 2015 OP
uppityperson Mar 2015 #1
pnwmom Mar 2015 #2
uppityperson Mar 2015 #4
pnwmom Mar 2015 #24
kcr Mar 2015 #37
Brother Buzz Mar 2015 #3
DefenseLawyer Mar 2015 #11
ismnotwasm Mar 2015 #34
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #5
FSogol Mar 2015 #23
JDDavis Mar 2015 #6
SidDithers Mar 2015 #7
JDDavis Mar 2015 #8
G_j Mar 2015 #9
ismnotwasm Mar 2015 #35
HuckleB Mar 2015 #10
G_j Mar 2015 #12
HuckleB Mar 2015 #14
G_j Mar 2015 #15
HuckleB Mar 2015 #16
G_j Mar 2015 #20
HuckleB Mar 2015 #21
G_j Mar 2015 #22
pnwmom Mar 2015 #26
pnwmom Mar 2015 #25
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #28
pnwmom Mar 2015 #29
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #30
pnwmom Mar 2015 #31
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #32
pnwmom Mar 2015 #33
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #36
pnwmom Mar 2015 #39
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #40
HuckleB Mar 2015 #13
HuckleB Mar 2015 #17
ananda Mar 2015 #18
Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2015 #38
Thirties Child Mar 2015 #19
DonViejo Mar 2015 #27
MiniMe Mar 2015 #41

Response to G_j (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:13 PM

1. Correlation does not equal causation.

Take Delaware and Iowa, for instance. Both states have relatively low poverty rates but are heavily fluoridated; they also have high levels of ADHD,

So, states that have community health plans in place and fluoridate also have providers who diagnose kids with ADHD?

That makes sense as far as correlation, but not causation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:15 PM

2. Correct. But the study deserves follow-up to make sure there isn't a causal connection. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:17 PM

4. "But scientists were quick to point out that this is just one study, and doesn’t prove..."

But scientists were quick to point out that this is just one study, and doesn’t prove that there is necessarily a causal link between fluoridation and ADHD. They also noted a number of important limitations: Individual fluoride exposures weren’t measured, ADHD diagnoses weren’t independently verified and there may be other unknown confounding factors that explain the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 07:37 PM

24. Who said it proved anything? But it wasn't just one study, and the Harvard epidemiologist said the issue deserves further study

“The results are plausible, and indeed meaningful,” says Dr. Philippe Grandjean, a physician and epidemiologist at Harvard University. This and other recent studies suggest that we should “reconsider the need to add fluoride to drinking water at current levels,” he adds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 09:03 PM

37. They suggest no such thing

At this time, why should reconsider the need to add something with such important benefits based on studies that prove nothing as yet? That would be foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:15 PM

3. Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:35 PM

11. Ice cream, Mandrake! Children's ice cream!

 

?w=640

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 08:46 PM

34. Mwahaha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:17 PM

5. Global warming linked to a reduction in the pirate population

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 06:52 PM

23. Thanks for posting that. It's a perfect example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:28 PM

6. Areas where flouridation exists just MAY be where

 

more competent and widespread diadnoses of ADHD ALSO exist, in other words, places with more "science" and stuff.

The cause/effect relationship may just mean that people who live where flouride is in the water are people who live where there are more active diagnoses of all childhood afflictions. That would mean more cases of diagnosed colds, more diagnosed influenza, more cases of Autism Spectrum Disorder, etc.

Have they tested for all of those as well?

In the USA, for the last 40-50 years, well over 70% of the drinking water consumed by children and adults has contained flouride. Back 50-60 years ago, there was no diagnostic label given to children for ADHD.
Flouride in drinking water must have caused it all. Or, we could just have better diagnostic science than we had back then.

Just sayin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:28 PM

7. Autism linked to consumption of organic foods...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:30 PM

8. If we keep eating this healthy we are all doomed to some disease, I swear!

 

It's inevitable!

And we'll all probably die someday! Damn those healthy foods, we are all gonna die if we keep eating them!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:30 PM

9. funny, however

these "clever" charts will definately not be published in a reputable science publication. But you knew that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 08:47 PM

35. I'm so stealing that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to HuckleB (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:37 PM

12. Another fisk of Ken Perrott – the climate denier gift that keeps on giving

http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/3552/another-fisk-of-ken-perrott-the-climate-denier-gift-that-keeps-on-giving/

Every now and then, a climate denier comes along and presents himself as a gift that’s just too good to ignore.

Ken Perrott of the OpenParachute blog is one such gift.

First, he was in denial of discrepancies in the temperature records.

Then, he was in denial of the limited effect of human CO2 emissions on climate, as documented in peer-reviewed papers.

Now, he’s in denial that there’s been no significant global warming since the 1990s – a trend that even NASA’s James Hansen has recently conceded…and he’s in denial that the latest ‘hockey stick’ study by Shaun Marcott has been discredited, even though Marcott himself was forced to admit over the weekend that the data did not support his claims.

Ken Perrott is also in denial that Michael Mann’s original ‘hockey stick’ study has been discredited, even though anyone with eyes could see that warm temperatures a thousand years ago mysteriously disappeared from Mann’s graph, despite remaining on hundreds of other published scientific studies.

The discreditation of Mann’s hockey stick has been widely published in official reports, books and papers…but as I said, one doesn’t even have to go that far. By making the Medieval Warm Period disappear (even though the warmth appears in his own raw data), Mann achieves a hockey stick effect with a blade spiking upward in the 20th century.

The Climategate papers from the University of East Anglia are rife with discussions by climate scientists – Mann’s colleagues – on how to make the MWP disappear. The same climategate emails also cast doubt on Mann’s work. As a climate denier, however, Ken doesn’t read such things. His attachment to climate change is religious in nature, a show of faith perhaps

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:38 PM

14. Maybe one day you'll be able to actually discuss the topic at hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:39 PM

15. I'd be glad to

but not with you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #15)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:40 PM

16. Why does good science scare you?

Why do you think it is ethical to push a questionable study without waiting to learn more about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:49 PM

20. no,

The study is perfectly legitimate, and is not fear mongering. I simply posted it. I have made no conclusions of my own, but find it interesting. I believe there a reasonable discussion that can be had on it's strengths and weaknesses. You, however, obviously have an agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #20)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:51 PM

21. You seem to like to spread questionable studies without bothering to explore them first.

That's not ethical. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #21)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:58 PM

22. it's an article from Newsweek

I found it interesting. So sue me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 07:43 PM

26. Why do a climate denier's scientific views appeal to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 07:41 PM

25. When you cite a climate denier as a source that is important to know.

It puts that scientists judgment -- and yours -- into context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 07:57 PM

28. What makes you think he's a "climate denier"?

Had you bothered to actually read the sourced link, you might have found this:

Although limited to an anti-fluoride Facebook case study I believe that the findings are also applicable to other anti-scientific movements like anti-vaccination and climate change denial. Here are some of the findings in the paper.


Here's a twitter post he sent:

https://twitter.com/openparachute/status/312003031615012864


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #28)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 08:15 PM

29. Post # 12.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #29)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 08:25 PM

30. You do realize post#12 is sourcing a no-shit climate change denier, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Wishart_(journalist)

The link you just posted is Ken Perrott challenging the arguments of a psuedo-science hack posting nonsense about climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ring_%28writer%29

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #30)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 08:27 PM

31. That's why I first cited post 12 and then removed the link. I think the reason

for the poster's confusion was that the denier's first name, like Perrot's, was Ken; so at first glance it looked like the cat book had been written by Ken Perrot instead of Ken Ring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #31)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 08:34 PM

32. You might want to redirect your "climate denier" allegation to the author of post #12

Because you have it exactly backwards.

Ken Perrot is not a climate change denier. The source in post #12 actually is a right wing climate change denier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #32)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 08:43 PM

33. You are reading my sentence backwards, apparently.

I said that Ken Ring was the cat book author, not Ken Perrot (it only appeared at first glance to have been written by Perrot.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #33)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 08:59 PM

36. I could care less about cat book authors

You have two posts alleging someone is sourcing a "climate denier" when they didn't and evidently could care less about the author of post #12 who actually is sourcing a "climate denier".

If you want to leave that unedited, more power to you, but I'm just pointing out the obvious error.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #36)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 09:15 PM

39. No, I don't. In my second post I referred back to another poster, to explain why I had answered

as I had, but removed the link (that I'd originally included in my post) once I saw that the poster had confused the two Kens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 09:32 PM

40. OK, let's start over

What makes you think Ken Perrott is a "climate denier"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:37 PM

13. A fair discussion of this starting at Fluoride Skepti Forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:44 PM

17. Critical Review and Appraisal of the piece by Marco Ghassemi

Critical Review and Appraisal: Malin & Till, 2015. Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: An ecological association. 1 a) Critical Appraisal – Using 11 questions to help you make sense of descriptive/cross-sectional studies 2 Poor quality ecological study. Limitations are: Unclear if sample was representative of the population; Power calculation was not provided; Measurement of fluoride exposure was ecological, and ADHD prevalence was based on parental self-report; Other sources of fluoride exposure were not quantified; and Key confounders other than SES (prenatal and neonatal exposure to lead, arsenic and manganese, and other neurological conditions or brain trauma) were not controlled for in the analysis; and Inadequate description and interpretation of the results (e.g., authors did not adequately explain why their results showed no/negative association between ADHD prevalence in areas with natural fluoride). b) Key Findings (as reported in the study) Parents reported higher rates of medically-diagnosed ADHD in their children in US states with a greater proportion of people receive fluoridated water. 1 o State prevalence of artificial water fluoridation in 1992 predicted state prevalence of ADHD in 2003 (p = 0.004), 2007 (p = 0.011) and 2011 (p = 0.002), after controlling for socioeconomic status. 1 Each 1% increase in artificial fluoridation prevalence in 1992 was associated with approximately 67,000 to 131,000 additional ADHD diagnoses from 2003 to 2011. 1 c) Limitations/Considerations Poor quality ecological study with important design limitations – e.g., at high risk of ecological fallacy, measurement error (ADHD prevalence based on self-report), and confounding bias. The authors’ provide a bias view of the effects of fluoridation on children’s cognitive functions in their “introduction” and “discussion” sections; they state “Fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin associated with impaired cognitive functioning in infants and children” (page 9) 1 . Their conclusion is misleading for three reasons: 1. They reference Grandjean & Landrigan (2014) 3 , a poor quality literature review, as evidence that fluoride is a neurotoxin. Grandejean & Landrigan conclusions are based on Choi et al. (2012) 4 systematic review, which included poor quality primary studies that did not control for confounders and not applicable to community water fluoridation. 2. They fail to cite a recent strong quality cohort study by Broadbent et al. (2014) 5 , which reported New Zealand children (followed from birth) living in fluoridated communities (0.85 ppm) did not differ in IQ compared to those living in non-fluoridated communities (0.0-0.03 ppm). This held true at age 38 years, both before and after adjusting for confounders. 3. They fail to report three scientific reviews that have concluded insufficient evidence of an association between optimal fluoride consumption and adverse health effects. 6,7,8 Peel Public Health Appraised by two independent reviewers March 9, 2015 d) Final Summary Analysis The quality of the evidence is poor with important methodological limitations, and should be interpreted with great caution (e.g., at high risk of ecological fallacy, measurement error and confounding bias). The authors’ assessment of the evidence-base is unbalanced, misleading and lacks citation of key studies. The results of this study do not support the consistent findings of three scientific reviews, which report insufficient evidence of an association between optimal fluoride consumption and adverse health effects. References 1. Malin AJ, Till C. Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association. Environmental Health, 2015; 14 (17). 2. Questions to help you make sense of descriptive/cross-sectional studies. Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University NY. 2002 [cited November 18, 2014]. Retrieved from http://reache.files.wordpress.com/.../cross-sectional.... 3. Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology. 2014; Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages 330-338. 4. Choi AL, Guifan S, Zhang Y, Grandjean P. Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2012; 120 (10): 1362-1368. 5. Broadbent JM, Thomson M, Ramrakha S, Moffitt TE, Zeng J, Page LAF, Poulton R. Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand. American Journal of Public Health, 2014: e1-5. Published online ahead of print May 15, 2014. 6. Center for Reviews and Disseminations. Fluoridation of Drinking Water: A Systematic Review of its Efficacy and Safety. York, UK: University of York, 2000. 7. Health Canada. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Fluoride Guideline Technical Document. Environmental and Workplace Health, Prepared by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Health and the Environment. December 2010. 8. McDonagh, M S, et al. Systematic review of water fluoridation. Br Med J, 2000; 321: 855-859.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:47 PM

18. This is bullshit.

There is no such thing as ADHD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #18)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 09:07 PM

38. Um, yeah there is.

Not saying it isn't overdiagnosed because it is (same can be said for high functioning autism), but there are people out there genuinely affected by it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:47 PM

19. If this is true, did they compare the statistics to areas with too much natural fluorine?

I developed fluorosis - brown stains on my teeth and, I presume, my bones. All because of too much natural fluorine in the water. If the problem is fluoride, why don't they compare ADHD rates, added-to-the water supply vs. already there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 07:46 PM

27. This will open another battle in the culture war, just wait and see...

that battle had pretty much died out (John Birch Society was a prime mover). Oh well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 10:06 PM

41. As my statistics teacher in college used to say...

You can prove anything with statistics. That is one thing that Faux Noise does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread